[TheClimate.Vote] June 4, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sun Jun 4 04:54:16 EDT 2017
/June 4, 2017/
*In a Dozen Interviews, Media Never Bothered Asking President Trump
About Climate Change
<http://fair.org/home/in-a-dozen-interviews-media-never-bothered-asking-president-trump-about-climate-change/>*
BY ADAM JOHNSON
President Donald Trump's disastrous withdrawal of the US from the Paris
Climate Change Accord understandably has the media in a frenzy.
"Unconscionable and fatuous," proclaimed The Economist (6/1/17). Trump
"shamefully abandons the fight against humanity's greatest threat,"
wrote Bloomberg News (6/1/17). But when given the opportunity over the
past four months of his presidency to ask Trump a question on climate
change, no outlet has bothered to bring up the topic at all.
In their respective interviews with Trump since he became president, AP
News (4/23/17), CBS News (4/30/17), New York Times (4/5/17), The
Economist (5/11/17), NBC News (5/11/17), ABC News (1/25/17), Bloomberg
News (5/1/17), Fox News (2/5/17), Breitbart (2/27/17), Reuters
(2/24/17), Time Magazine (3/27/17) and the Financial Times (4/2/17) all
failed to ask Trump about his climate change views or policies.
The same Economist and Bloomberg who now lament, in almost apocalyptic
terms, Trump's withdraw from the Paris Accords, when given the
opportunity to press Trump on his climate change policies-or even broach
the subject at all-chose not to.
FAIR could not find a single question about climate change in any
interview or press conference with Trump since he took office on January
20, 2017.
Liberal media watchdog Media Matters' annual study found that in 2016,
evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as Fox
News Sunday,
did not air a single segment informing viewers of what to expect on
climate change and climate-related policies or issues-including the
Paris agreement-under a Trump or Hillary Clinton administration.
Despite the universal consensus on the science of climate change and the
urgent need to act, the tremendous stakes to the planet and humankind,
and the fact that the last three years were the three hottest on record,
the media seems fickle at best in prioritizing the topic. They're mildly
outraged when Trump pulls out of the only meaningful global effort to
curb climate change, but have next to nothing to say in the lead up to
him doing so.
http://fair.org/home/in-a-dozen-interviews-media-never-bothered-asking-president-trump-about-climate-change/
*(video) Mitigate, Adapt, or Suffer. Connecting Global Change to Local
Impacts and Solutions <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlcQPWmq3c4>*
/Dr Katharine Hayhoe's lecture get better and better. / Mitigate, Adapt,
or Suffer. Connecting Global Change to Local Impacts and Solutions -
Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist whose research focuses on
developing and applying high-resolution climate projections to
understand what climate change means for people and the natural environment.
Katharine spoke at the Climate Change Science Institute at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Her presentation touched on the science and policy
of climate change, the kind of impacts we may see globally and locally,
what options and information we have to be prepared for these changes,
and ways that non-scientists can effectively to discuss these issues
with the general public. For more info on Katharine,
www.katharinehayhoe.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlcQPWmq3c4
How GOP Leaders Came to View*Climate Change *as Fake Science
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html>
The Republican Party's fast journey from debating how to combat
human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story
of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a
partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic
shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over
cooperation and conciliation...
"In some ways," he added, "it's become yet another of the long list of
litmus test issues that determine whether or not you're a good Republican."
Yet when Mr. Trump pulled the United States from the Paris accord, the
Senate majority leader, the speaker of the House and every member of the
elected Republican leadership were united in their praise.
Those divisions did not happen by themselves. Republican lawmakers were
moved along by a campaign carefully crafted by fossil fuel industry
players, most notably Charles D. and David H. Koch, the Kansas-based
billionaires who run a chain of refineries (which can process 600,000
barrels of crude oil per day) as well as a subsidiary that owns or
operates 4,000 miles of pipelines that move crude oil.
Mr. Trump has staffed his White House and cabinet with officials who
have denied, or at least questioned, the existence of global warming.
And he has adopted the Koch language, almost to the word. On Thursday,
as Mr. Trump announced the United States' withdrawal, he at once claimed
that the Paris accord would cost the nation millions of jobs and that it
would do next to nothing for the climate....
Beyond the White House, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of
the House Science Committee, held a hearing this spring aimed at
debunking climate science, calling the global scientific consensus
"exaggerations, personal agendas and questionable predictions."
Unshackled by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and other
related rulings, which ended corporate campaign finance restrictions,
Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity started an all-fronts
campaign with television advertising, social media and cross-country
events aimed at electing lawmakers who would ensure that the fossil fuel
industry would not have to worry about new pollution regulations.
Their first target: unseating Democratic lawmakers such as
Representatives Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello of Virginia, who had
voted for the House cap-and-trade bill, and replacing them with
Republicans who were seen as more in step with struggling Appalachia,
and who pledged never to push climate change measures.
While the politics of climate change in the United States has grown more
divided since then, the scientific community has united: Global warming
is having an impact, scientists say, with sea levels rising along with
the extremity of weather events. Most of the debate is about the extent
of those impacts - how high the seas may rise, or how intense and
frequent heavy storms or heat waves may be...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html
*How to teach kids about climate change where most parents are skeptics*
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-to-teach-kids-about-climate-change-where-most-parents-are-skeptics/2017/06/03/1ad4b67a-47a0-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?utm_term=.7f2f0c2692c9>
By Sarah Kaplan June 3
COEUR d'ALENE, Idaho - Jakob Namson peered up at the towering ponderosa
pine before him. He looked at his notebook, which was full of
calculations scribbled in pencil. Then he looked back at the pine. If
his math was right - and it nearly always is - he would need to plant 36
trees just like this one to offset the 831 pounds of carbon dioxide that
his drive to school emits each year.
"I think I'm beginning to understand the enormity of the problem," the
teenager said ...
The phrase "climate change" evokes deep skepticism in northern Idaho.
Fewer than half of adults in Kootenai County think that human activities
contribute to global warming, surveys show. In February, the state
legislature urged the state board of education to rewrite the science
curriculum to eliminate what one lawmaker called "an over emphasis on
human caused factors."
"We could do this in the classroom," Esler said. "I could just give them
the numbers and show them a PowerPoint. But now I have kids smelling the
inside of a tree. That's a tangible connection. . . . I hope it makes
them think about what happens to that carbon when it comes out of their
tail pipe."
The Outdoor Studies Program has 76 energetic students who are conversant
in subjects such as "eutrophication" and "water snow equivalency" and
will earnestly say that they "want to save the world."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-to-teach-kids-about-climate-change-where-most-parents-are-skeptics/2017/06/03/1ad4b67a-47a0-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?utm_term=.7f2f0c2692c9
Oceanfloor Craters Hint Of Potential Arctic Methane Explosions In
The Future
<http://www.techtimes.com/articles/208989/20170603/methane-domes-hint-of-potential-arctic-sea-floor-reveal-methane-explosions-in-the-future.htm>
Researchers from the Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and
Climate at UiT The Arctic University of Norway discovered hundreds more
craters than they were searching for underneath the Barents Sea, and
found evidence that more methane explosions could happen in the future.
The study led by Professor Karin Andreassen of CAGE revealed at least a
hundred kilometer-wide (0.6 miles) craters and several hundred smaller
ones littering the Arctic sea floor. All the craters were once methane
domes that exploded about 12,000 years ago, but research reveals that at
least 600 areas within and outside the craters continue to release
methane gas, which poses potential danger in the years to come.
Methane takes the quick way out
Accounting for all the sources and sinks of methane is important for
determining its concentration in the atmosphere. Andreassen et al.
found evidence of large craters embedded within methane-leaking
subglacial sediments in the Barents Sea, Norway. They propose that
the thinning of the ice sheet at the end of recent glacial cycles
decreased the pressure on pockets of hydrates buried in the
seafloor, resulting in explosive blow-outs. This created the giant
craters and released large quantities of methane into the water above.
Abstract
Widespread methane release from thawing Arctic gas hydrates is a
major concern, yet the processes, sources, and fluxes involved
remain unconstrained. We present geophysical data documenting a
cluster of kilometer-wide craters and mounds from the Barents Sea
floor associated with large-scale methane expulsion. Combined with
ice sheet/gas hydrate modeling, our results indicate that during
glaciation, natural gas migrated from underlying hydrocarbon
reservoirs and was sequestered extensively as subglacial gas
hydrates. Upon ice sheet retreat, methane from this hydrate
reservoir concentrated in massive mounds before being abruptly
released to form craters. We propose that these processes were
likely widespread across past glaciated petroleum provinces and that
they also provide an analog for the potential future destabilization
of subglacial gas hydrate reservoirs beneath contemporary ice
sheets. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6341/948
That is not saying methane explosions are just waiting to happen, but
the methane trapped underneath the ice could be released if the Earth
continues to warm.
*Massive Methane Explosions In The Past*
As mentioned above, the great methane explosions happened thousands of
years ago. The methane gas were actually trapped underneath a thick ice
sheet during the last Ice Age and the research model showed that the
time of explosions matched the time when the ice sheets began to melt as
the climate warmed.
Methane hydrates can withstand immense pressure and extreme cold
temperatures, and that is exactly what the situation was during the Ice
Age, but the sudden collapse of ice sheets created a way for the methane
to be released.
"The principle is the same as in a pressure cooker: if you do not
control the release of the pressure, it will continue to build up until
there is a disaster in your kitchen," Professor Andreassen said.
*Danger For Future Explosions*
There is a bit of assurance from the researchers since they confirm that
sudden methane explosions like the ones they discovered in the Arctic
only happens in areas that have a huge underground gas reservoirs.
The good news is that the ones in the study are only seeping moderate
amounts of methane gas up to 200 meters above the sea floor, which means
that bacteria in the sea are still taking care of disposing the gas.
This, however, is not an assurance that it will continue to be safe
because the Arctic ice sheets are also retreating in the present time,
which means there may still be undiscovered and under pressure methane
mounds in the area.
The bad news, however, is that there are more hydrocarbon reserves under
the West Antarctica and Arctic ice sheets, and methane gas seeps have
been discovered along the Atlantic Coast, and just off the Oregon and
Washington Coasts. This means continued global warming could potentially
set off explosions when the conditions align.
*The second condition - the glacial melt - is already happening.*
"The only way you can keep this hydrate that's in the ground is to keep
from warming the oceans. The only way you can keep them from warming is
to reduce the greenhouses gases in the atmosphere," University of
Washington Oceanographer H. Paul Johnson said. Johnson is not involved
in the research but has studied methane hydrates along the Pacific
Northwest.
If there is any wonder why methane in the atmosphere is bad, just think
of how effective the gas is in absorbing heat. More methane in the
atmosphere means more heat trapped in Earth, and it will just keep
getting hotter and hotter and it could severely affect the ecosystem.
- See more at:
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/208989/20170603/methane-domes-hint-of-potential-arctic-sea-floor-reveal-methane-explosions-in-the-future.htm#sthash.u8xJAczA.dpuf
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6341/948
See also:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/05/7-facts-need-to-know-arctic-methane-time-bomb
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871174X16300488
*Sorry, Donald: Pittsburgh Thinks You Are Wrong About Climate Change
<http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/trump-pittsburgh-wrong>*
The president says he represents Pittsburgh, not Paris. Pittsburgh's
mayor isn't happy.
There's just one problem: The citizens of Pittsburgh are strongly
supportive of climate action. According to a recent study from the Yale
Program on Climate Change Communication, 68 percent of adults in the
Pittsburgh metro area support strict limits on carbon emissions from
coal-fired power plants-a key element of the US commitment under the
Paris deal. For Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, that number
is 74 percent. For Pennsylvania's 14th Congressional District, which
also includes Pittsburgh, it's 78 percent.
Roughly two-thirds of Pennsylvanians-and Americans as a whole-believe
the United States should remain in the Paris agreement, according to the
Yale research.
There doesn't appear to be any data on the popularity of the Paris
agreement within Pittsburgh itself, but it's worth noting that the
city's mayor, Bill Peduto, actually traveled to Paris during the 2015
negotiations to help press for an agreement. "Pittsburgh and other
cities are on the front lines of the climate change crisis, and it is
our responsibility to address the deep challenges it is creating for us,
our children and our grandchildren," he said in a statement at the time,
according to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/trump-pittsburgh-wrong
*How Climate Change Saved Steve Bannon's Job
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-climate-change-saved-steve-bannons-job>*
The decision on the Paris accord pitted Bannon against Jared and
Ivanka-and played to all of Bannon's strengths.
By Ryan Lizza
A White House official insisted that Jared and Ivanka's role in the
climate debate has been misunderstood and exaggerated. "Jared believes
that it's a bad deal and that the standards were too high and could hurt
the economy. But his preference would have been to stay in," the White
House official said. "Ivanka's preference was to stay in, but she saw
her role as setting up a process inside and outside the government to
get information to her father from all sides of the issue."
Bannonism always thrives in the Trump White House when it can serve as a
political accelerant for Trump, who, at the time of his decision on
Thursday, was confronting a continued erosion of support from his own
base, a widening Russia probe, and a stalled agenda in Congress.
On the climate accord, Kushner and Ivanka hardly had a chance. Bannon's
nationalism, especially when it comes to trade and immigration, is still
not widely supported in the Republican establishment and conservative
donor class. But when Bannon's views line up with those of Republican
leaders and donors-not to mention those of Trump-he almost always
prevails. If Trump had taken the less extreme course on climate advised
by his daughter and son-in-law, he would have been breaking a campaign
promise and going against the wishes of the entire G.O.P. leadership. In
addition, Trump, who knows little about policy, is famously
narcissistic, and, easily influenced by personal slights, reportedly was
perturbed by a remark from Emmanuel Macron, the French President, who
said he intentionally made a show of forcefully shaking Trump's hand at
the recent G7 summit. Trump also reportedly believed that angering
Europe was a "secondary benefit" of pulling out of the accord.
Given these circumstances, Bannon could not have had a stronger hand to
play in this fight. Still, the climate decision is ultimately the
responsibility of Trump himself, not of any single adviser. Trump
generally makes decisions that align with Bannon's views not because he
is being manipulated by him but because he agrees with him.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-climate-change-saved-steve-bannons-job
Trump impeachment chances: Global warming edition.
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/02/trump_impeachment_chances_global_warming_edition.html>
In the tradition of the Clintonometer and the Trump Apocalypse Watch,
the Impeach-O-Meter is a wildly subjective and speculative daily
estimate of the likelihood that Donald Trump leaves office before his
term ends, whether by being impeached (and convicted) or by resigning
under threat of same. (40%)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/02/trump_impeachment_chances_global_warming_edition.html
*Trump's Voters Are Responsible for Killing the Paris Climate Agreement
<http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/06/03/weather-report-trumps-voters-killed-the-paris-climate-agreement/>*
by D.R. Tucker June 3, 2017
...It was those who voted for Trump who abandoned the Paris climate
agreement. Trump is merely the tool they used to say "Screw you!" to
science, facts, reality, reason and the health and safety of their own
children and grandchildren. Any Republican who won the 2016 GOP primary
and the presidency–Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich–would
have pulled out of Paris too, at the behest of the base....
With all the chatter about the alleged need for the Democratic Party to
abandon so-called "identity politics," perhaps we should examine the
role "identity politics" may have played in the Trump electorate's
decision to reject efforts to reduce carbon emissions. It has long been
recognized that climate change will have a disproportionate impact on
communities of color; just recall the images from post-Katrina New
Orleans a dozen years ago for proof....
... a political party can't please everybody. The Democratic Party
cannot simultaneously claim to stand for strong action on climate
change, which will disproportionately impact key members of the party's
base, and chase after the votes of those who don't care about this
issue. Attempting to please both voters focused on the climate crisis
and those who don't give a damn could well damn the Democrats. ...
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/06/03/weather-report-trumps-voters-killed-the-paris-climate-agreement/
*This Day in Climate History June 4, 2007
<http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19058588/#.UruVhvvAakA> - from D.R. Tucker*
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin apologizes for his May 31, 2007
remarks on NPR questioning the importance of addressing carbon pollution.
Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio
interviewer he wasn’t sure global warming was a problem .
“I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin
said on NPR. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem
we must wrestle with.”
The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his
remarks ignorant.
An international panel this year predicted that uncontrolled greenhouse
gas emissions could drive up global temperatures and trigger heat waves,
devastating droughts and super storms.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19058588/#.UruVhvvAakA/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
////You are encouraged to forward this email /
. *** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20170604/d463b487/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list